In responding to the heinous shooting in a Quebec City mosque last January, Premier Philippe Couillard made a series of comments that seemed to be coming from the heart. “Spoken words matter. Written words matter,” he said, “they can of course express an idea, but they can hurt. They can hurt very much. We should all be cognizant of that.”

This is particularly true with respect to the words we use with our young people. Such words can reproduce existing attitudes that harm, divide and exclude, or they can give young people the tools to build understanding and empathy. As a teacher, I am acutely aware of the heavy responsibility I have regarding the words I use with my students.

This is particularly true with respect to the words we use with our young people. Such words can reproduce existing attitudes that harm, divide and exclude, or they can give young people the tools to build understanding and empathy. As a teacher, I am acutely aware of the heavy responsibility I have regarding the words I use with my students.

While there are numerous problems with the textbook, it seems fitting, with the one-year anniversary of the Jan. 29 mosque shooting approaching, to focus here on the way Muslims are depicted.

As historian and literary theorist Edward Said identified long ago in his classic book Orientalism, Islamophobic stereotypes tend to be centred around associations with terrorism and misogyny. Sadly, rather than helping students to deconstruct these stereotypes that have been so harmful to Quebec citizens of Muslim faith, the textbook reinforces them.

On Page 301, we find a section titled The Threat of Terrorism that sends the message that terrorism is exclusively associated with Muslims. The only examples given are an Islamist terrorist organization and a Muslim country. Meanwhile, Marc Lépine’s massacre of 14 women at École Polytechnique is not mentioned in this section. Where it is mentioned on Page 323, the act is described as “premeditated” and “politically motivated,” however the word “terrorism” appears nowhere. And not only are the FLQ not described as terrorists, the words with which they are described are euphemistic. On Page 258 we learn of Pierre Laporte being “found dead.” The perpetrators of this crime are then described not as murderers or terrorists, but as “abductors.”

On Pages 321 and 322, we find an extremely one-sided presentation of the so-called debate on “religious neutrality.” We learn that some believe that certain religious accommodations are “contrary to the values of Quebec society,” but nowhere do we learn about those who believe that inclusion and respect for religious freedom and human rights are Quebec values, enshrined in Quebec’s own human rights charter.

No mention is made of the extent to which these debates played on ignorant stereotypes about Muslim women, nor of the dramatic rise in xenophobic hate crimes targeting Muslims, and particularly Muslim women, provoked by this public debate. Once again, an opportunity to deconstruct ignorant stereotypes and promote an inclusive vision of society is missed, and instead harmful stereotypes about a vulnerable minority are reinforced.

Problematic depictions of the Muslim community are only the tip of the iceberg. Quebec’s new history program depicts black Quebecers, members of Quebec’s various immigrant communities, anglophones and Indigenous people in problematic ways.

There is an urgent need for the government to immediately go back to the drawing board to produce a history curriculum that is reflective of the sorts of values articulated by our premier and other political leaders in the days following the Quebec City massacre. If, as the premier said, “words can hurt, words can be knives slashing at people’s consciousness,” then we must be particularly vigilant about the words we are exposing our young people to.

With Provincial negotiations finished, the local Teachers Unions are now consulting their members about negotiations over local contracts with school boards. Below is a table put together by Royal West teacher Katharine Cukier comparing sick day (provincially negotiated in Quebec) and special leave day (locally negotiated with school boards) provisions in collective agreements across Canada with those of teachers in the English Montreal School Board.

To put the information in this table in context, a few words about salary. In recent years there have been two rigorous comparisons of teachers salaries across Canada. The BC Teachers Federation’s document compared the top and bottom of the payscale of teachers across Canada in two categories in 2013/2014. In three of the four comparisons Quebec’s teachers were dead last in terms of salary. A similar comparison covering the same year by Statistics Canada echoed these results finding Quebec’s teachers at the bottom of almost every category of comparison.

However, looking at the top and bottom of the payscale does not tell the whole story. There is also the issue of the number of steps in the payscale. While most provinces have between 10 and 12 steps on teacher payscales, Quebec has 17. To understand just how much this impacts teachers in Quebec, one can compare the earnings over 25 years based on the payscales in current collective agreements. Doing so reveals the following:

Over 25 years a teacher in PEI (category CVA) will earn $189,668 more than a teacher in Quebec.

A high school teacher in Ontario (level 6) will earn $415,935 more than a Quebec teacher.

Most interestingly a BC teacher (Cat 5) whose payscale tops off at an amount lower ($77,905) than the top of the Quebec payscale ($78,992), will still earn $158,950 more than a Quebec teacher over 25 years of employment.

In comparing Quebec’s situation with respect to sick days and special leave days there are a few points to consider:

CJAD’s Leslie Roberts speaks with teacher Robert Green about the Quebec government’s proposal to introduce a financial literacy course at the expense of the Contemporary World course. Click here to download the podcast.

Horrified by the Parti Québécois’s proposed Charter of Values and the conservative ethnic nationalism it represented, the election of 2014 saw large numbers of Quebecers turn to a corrupt, austerity-mad Liberal Party, hoping it to be a lesser evil.

This fall, high school students throughout Quebec will reap the consequences of this short-sighted political calculation as they are subjected to a dogmatic, exclusionary and politically regressive history program that is as much the product of the PQ’s conservative ethnic nationalism as it is the Liberal Party’s myopic obsession with public sector austerity.

An ideologically driven reform

The genesis of this reform begins with the lobbying efforts of la Coalition pour l’histoire, an organization founded by nationalist historians Éric Bédard and Robert Comeau with the support of organizations such as la Fondation Lionel-Groulx, le Mouvement national des Québécois, and la Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal. Despite the fact that Quebec’s current curriculum contains numerous and frequent references to Quebec nationalism and the Quebec nation, the coalition sees it as its mission to stop what it calls the “denationalization” of Quebec history.

The politics of this coalition were laid bare in 2013 when the organization refused to meet with the members of the initial committee set up to reform the curriculum, because of the “divergent views” that would be present. Evidently the coalition members wanted a committee as monolithic in its composition as the view of Quebec society they sought to impose on Quebec’s students.

The PQ education minister of the day, Marie Malavoy, subsequently decided to meet privately with a small group of coalition supporters. Cancelling a meeting of the larger, more diverse committee was a telling indication of the direction she was intending on taking the program.

In an open letter published by Le Devoir, the leadership of L’Association québécoise pour l’enseignement en univers social (AQEUS) scolded the minister for taking her advice from a committee of nationalist historians that not only excluded any participation from teachers and pedagogical experts, but also prevented one historian from participating because of his activism with Québec Solidaire. They also accused the minister of “instrumentalizing” the teaching of history for “purely partisan and political ends.”

Though the report that would serve as the basis for the PQ’s pilot program did eventually involve a modest process of consultation, the end result clearly reflected the coalition’s desires for the program. Coalition spokesperson Robert Comeau was quoted in Le Devoir as being “very satisfied.”

Minorities omitted from history

So what exactly is so problematic about the proposed reform? To answer that question, one must consider the things that have been omitted.

As a grade 6 teacher who has just finished correcting provincial math exams, I am convinced that our government has taken the wrong path in evaluating knowledge that our children in Quebec society have grasped through our educational system. The exam is divided into 8 parts, with one large situational problem and 6 shorter applications.There is also a traditional multiple choice and quick answer booklet.

There is no sound pedagogy in what the government is requesting from 11 and 12 year olds. The applications took anywhere from 1 to 1 and a half hours, rather than the 20 to 30 minute time limit the government wanted. The situational took 2 days rather than the 1 to 2 and a half hours.The children could not do this on their own, despite discussion beforehand to clarify exactly what was being requested of them. The government is asking them to work in isolation on a budget proposal scenario which frankly is irrelevant for most children, and the steps involved are too complex. Most twelve year olds do not hold the purse strings in their families. They are lucky if they have an allowance. Parents buy the necessities and children in poor neighbourhoods have never handled money. They may be able to find percents and calculate tax on an item when we scaffold the activities, but they have no idea what budgets and proposals are about.The applications are too long and the language is such that the child does not even know what is being asked.

Now that the dust has settled on Quebec’s negotiations with public sector workers, it’s time for public sector workers to look back on the campaign that was.

For the 400,000+ members of the Common Front, a coalition of public sector unions, one issue in particular demands critical reflection: the manipulative and dishonest way that information about the tentative agreement on salary was presented to the media, the public and the Common Front’s own members.

In general, the act of consciously making untrue statements is considered to be something for which politicians should be held accountable. Many a powerful world leader has fallen as a result of dishonest behaviour, including most recently the president of Iceland. The question for Common Front members is whether this same principle should apply to leaders of labour federations.

To illustrate just how dishonest the Common Front was in presenting the salary agreement to the public, let’s compare it to how this same salary agreement was presented by another labour federation, La Fédération autonome de l’enseignement (FAE), which is not part of the Common Front.

Motion to Censure QPAT President Richard Goldfinch

Whereas one-time lump sum payments, investment in resources and money for bonuses are very different from salary increases that benefit teachers for the rest of their careers, and

Whereas at a December 20th Common Front press conference the following occurred:

one-time lump sum payments, investment in resources and money for bonuses were presented as if they were salary increases, with the claim that government’s salary offer had moved from 3 percent to 9.15 -10.25 percent

the goal of ‘stopping the continued impoverishment of members’ was presented as if it had been achieved.

speculation was offered that given the low rate of inflation, public sector workers might even come out ahead in terms of buying power by the end of the contract.

Whereas the misinformation presented by the Common Front leadership gave the public and union members the mistaken impression that the government’s offer was much more generous than it actually was, and

Whereas similar misinformation (presenting the salary increase as 9.15 -10.25 percent) had been widely reported in the media two days previous, and

Whereas Quebec Provincial Association of Teachers President Richard Goldfinch failed not only to send in corrections to the major English media outlets or even to his own members, he also failed to ensure that the Common Front press conference held two days later would not repeat this misinformation, and

Whereas even if the leadership of the Common Front sincerely believed that this was the best deal possible for its members, it is utterly unacceptable to use manipulation and deceit in order to have the agreement approved by members

Be it resolved that the members of the MTA hereby censure QPAT President Richard Goldfinch for failing to ensure that the information presented at the December 20th Common Front press conference was as accurate as possible, and

Be it further resolved that MTA President Peter Sutherland be directed to draft a letter to each of the Presidents of the labour federations participating in the Common Front expressing the dissatisfaction of MTA members over the manipulative and deceitful way that information about the agreement in principle was presented to the public.

Prior to the holidays, teachers, parents and students in Quebec received some hopeful news: the Common Front, consisting of unions representing over 400,000 of the province’s half a million public sector workers, had overcome their final hurdle and arrived at an agreement on salaries. The news was filled with stories of satisfied union leaders trumpeting the fact that they had persuaded the government to move from their initial offer of 3 per cent in salary increases over five years to an increase of between 9.15 per cent and 10.25 per cent per year.

It may therefore come as a surprise to readers to learn that many public sector workers are preparing to vote against the deal. Delegates for the federation representing health care workers, which represents nearly one-quarter of the Common Front’s membership, have already voted to reject the deal. The FAE labour federation, which represents 34,000 teachers in the province’s French school boards (but is not a member of the Common Front), is recommending that its members reject a similar deal.

Why are Quebec workers, who have been without a contract since last April, skeptical of the proposed settlement? Because, on closer inspection, the deal on offer is not at all the victory that the Common Front leaders are claiming.

Government appears indifferent to the harm their policies cause to students

As public outrage over the Quebec Liberal government’s attacks on public education has grown, so too has the movement to surround schools in human chains on the first day of each month. Oct. 1 saw this movement not only grow to over 300 schools throughout Quebec, but also include a significant number of schools in the province’s English school boards which were participating for the first time.

The aim of this action was to send a clear message to Premier Philippe Couillard and his cadre: parents, teachers and support staff are united against the government’s attempt to balance its books on the backs of students. Of particular concern are proposals to remove limits on class size and cut a whole range of supports for students with special needs.

While the potent symbolism of community after community uniting to form a human chain in defence of their schools was not enough to persuade the government to change course, it did at least force the minister of education to publicly defend his actions.

His comments were disturbing to say the least. When asked why he would not restore funding for support for students with special needs, Education Minister François Blais stated that given Quebec’s current budget situation, such an investment would be “maladroit.” The minister was essentially saying that to leave in place existing supports for students with special needs would be “awkward” or “clumsy.”

A government of sociopaths?

Blais’ choice of words has left me with a serious question: Is Quebec’s Liberal government a government of sociopaths?

Teachers are angry that Quebec wants to increase class sizes in high schools and elementary schools and is proposing to no longer consider whether a child has a learning disability when calculating class sizes. A few months before negotiations began in March on a new collective agreement with the province’s teachers, former Education Minister Yves Bolduc told reporters there was no clear link between smaller class sizes and student performance, citing a 2008 Université Laval study. The government also wants to increase the work week from 32 to 35 hours and is offering a three-per cent wage increase over five years.